At least, I for one am annoyed at having to call ntohl() every time I want an int I pulled off the network to be usuable.
It's called "portability".
If you're following good programming practices, you shouldn't have to care - or even know - whether your system is big-endian or little-endian, unless you're writing kernels or compilers.
The BSD license, on the other hand, more or less allows anyone to take anything written for it, so long as they provide credit to the original authors.
That's the "old" BSD licence. Problem is that you can quickly end up with pages and pages of author credits. The "new" BSD licence - which is essentially the same as the X11 licence - no longer requires this.
I love european attitudes, we save, nearly single handedly europe, not once but twice, in the last 100 years...
Um, when would that have been?
In both WWI and WWII, the U.S. entered late in the fray. WWI had nothing to so with "saving" anyone, it was all about which colonial power would come out on top. In WWII, it was the Soviet Union that broke Hitler's might...U.S. involvement helped mop things up and draw it to a quicker close, sure, but the Third Reich was doomed with or without it.
Instead of charging someone X number of dollars for the cost of recycling, they should charge X*2 number of dollars and then PAY each person who brings in a computer X number of dollars.
Hmmm...like a bottle bill for computers. I like it!
The Constitution *explicityly* acknowledges the Common Law.
Not really. There's a brief mention of it in Amendment Seven, regarding juries in lawsuits, but that's far from a total acknowledgement.
However, most state constitutions do - the Maryland constitution states "That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that
Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six..."
Trespass clearly applies, just as when some dolt lifts you windshield wiper to insert an ad.
That's considered trespass?
What about a flyer left on a screen door? Are are those local pizza places - as well as political canvassers around election time - trespassing? What about the UPS guy putting a Post-It on my front door? (Wouldn't be specifically trespass to chattels, I assume...)
I dunno...that sounds like it brings up free speech issues. Sounds like, if this is true, the only legal way to distribute written material to a community - say, to let them know about some local issue, not just a new take-out joint - would be an expensive mass USPS mailing.
Can you give some references on this? Court cases that have actually applied this interpretation? (I'm especially curious because I'm starting a new karate program locally, and trying to figure out how to advertize it.)
if I want to keep the hardware I buy in the closet forever when I'm through using it, do I still have to pay the fee?
"Forever"? Damn,that's pretty ambitious about longevity...:-)
Seriously...even if you plan to keep it for the rest of your life, it's still going to have to be disposed of around the time when you have to be disposed of. (Fortunately, you and I are far more recyclable than our boxen.) I seriously doubt that your grandkids are going to have much use for that old '286 clone with the burnt-out power supply and the rusting case.
I live in a US city and I'm doing great. I'd rather live here than anywhere else.
All depends on which part of which city.
No question, there is a lot of baseless paranoia among my fellow suburbanites. On the other hand, there are some neighborhoods in some cities where kids grow up seriously not expecting to survive into their twenties.
Maybe you didn't notice but inner cities in the U.S. and many other countries are economic wastelands.
True enough.
The only way to escape is to get to a real job outside those areas. That requires a car for most.
Or better mass transit.
I don't know where you got the idea that the poor don't own cars.
I've had friends on welfare, and have witnessed their transportation woes in trying to deal with either the expense of vehicle ownership, or the very poor local mass transit system.
In urban areas, many poor people can't afford a car (plus insurance, plus parking fees, plus maintanence...) So tax-supported roads help them very little. They need good mass transit.
In rural areas, the situation is different. But the proposed scheme would have much lower costs-per-mile in rural areas.
Economically, this seesm like a good idea - it makes the paid price of driving closer to the true cost. But politically...the possibility of the state tracking my movements is not something I welcome with open arms. Not to mention the draconian enforcement measures that would be needed to prevent tampering.
I have YET to find "Rabbit of Seville" so the kids can understand why I sing Rossini whilst washing their hair.
Welcome to my shop
Let me cut your mop
Let me shave your crop
Dain...tily
Dain...tily
Don't look so perplexed
Why must you be vexed
Can't you see you're next
Yes you're next
You're so next...
In any sane society, Chuck Jones would be canonized. He leaves behind a great legacy...I agree with JMS that two hundred years from now people will still be watching "Duck Dogers in the 24th and 1/2 Century!"
Thanks, Chuck. You will be remembered, most fondly.
I wouldn't concern yourself with intelligent robots taking over the world. It is not possible for anything to create something that is smarter than itself.
While your assertation itself is questionable, we don't have to create them, as such; simply set up an environment in which they can evolve.
We don't have to know how to build something that's smart, we need only to be able to judge if it is smart. Introduce mutation, do selection, bam!
Lotus Notes is crap. Such a pointless piece of bloatware I have never seen before. Having to use it is the single biggest pain in working for IBM.
Come to think of it, all non-standard "groupware" should be takne out and burned, and replaced with standard e-mail, internal newsgroups, and a few simple web-based apps.
You're confusing eminent domain with civil forfeiture with evidence seizures.
Eminent domain - "We the state need to knock your house down to make a new road. You are entitled to compensation. We've decided that it's worth $100,000. If you don't like our assessment, there is a lengthy and difficult appeals process."
(Not to be confused with the bullshit idea of "takings", where being prevented from raping the land is somehow supposed to be the same as having your deed revoked.)
Civil forfeiture - "We the state think your property has commited a crime. (Yes, not you, your property.) We're taking it. No trial. If you don't like it, you can try to sue us to get it back, and you can guess what the chances of success are." (Not to be confused with any sort of due process, justice, or civilized behavior.)
Evidence seizures - "We the state think you're doing something naughty with this stuff. We're taking it to investigate. Forget about getting it back in any reasonable period of time. If you don't like it...tough shit." (A necessary thing in theory, but highly abused in practice, especially with respect to computer-related crimes.)
This case - "We're not the government. We want your stuff or we'll sue and/or press charges, under a blatantly unconstitutional law we helped buy."
I am not a lawyer, but it sounds to me like the removal of copyright protection is a "taking".
The institution of "copyright" protection is a taking. Ideas are not subject to ownership; creating a temporary monopoly on a thought in order to "promote the useful arts and sciences" is not some natural right of an author.
The rights can pass to your next-of-kin, that is, your estate, or whomever you may have given it to explicitly in your will.
That's the theory; but it's not within the constitutional power of Congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing
for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Nothing in their about heirs.
And heirs aren't the ones benefiting anyway from these massive extensions of copyright term - it's all about corporate ownership.
is that if I devote my life to a project and produce a great work, shouldn't I be able to enjoy the spoils and decide the future of that great work? Shouldn't I be able to go to my grave, comforted by the fact that my magnum opus will provide for my children's future?
Yes, no, and no.
Spoils? Yes, if someone is making money off your work, you deserve a cut. Control its future? No; it is not only immoral, but impractical to attempt to control what others do with ideas that happen to arise first in your particular 1500cc of meat computer. Your heirs? No; immoral and unconstitutional.
This is capitalism at its finest.
At its clearest, perhaps, as it shows how capitalism is reliant upon the state to create, define, and defend artificial property rights.
QPL was a Free (as defined by the FSF) license, just not GPL-compatible
The QPL was not the original licence. QPL didn't come along until 1999. The original Qt licence is very non-free - there are restrictions on even using it to create (not distribute) software, there are special restrictions if you're getting paid to develop software, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there is such as thing as network order.
It's called "portability".
If you're following good programming practices, you shouldn't have to care - or even know - whether your system is big-endian or little-endian, unless you're writing kernels or compilers.
That's the "old" BSD licence. Problem is that you can quickly end up with pages and pages of author credits. The "new" BSD licence - which is essentially the same as the X11 licence - no longer requires this.
Who issues corporate charters?
Never forget that corporations are creations of the state.
Um, when would that have been?
In both WWI and WWII, the U.S. entered late in the fray. WWI had nothing to so with "saving" anyone, it was all about which colonial power would come out on top. In WWII, it was the Soviet Union that broke Hitler's might...U.S. involvement helped mop things up and draw it to a quicker close, sure, but the Third Reich was doomed with or without it.
Hmmm...like a bottle bill for computers. I like it!
Not really. There's a brief mention of it in Amendment Seven, regarding juries in lawsuits, but that's far from a total acknowledgement.
However, most state constitutions do - the Maryland constitution states "That the Inhabitants of Maryland are entitled to the Common Law of England, and the trial by Jury, according to the course of that Law, and to the benefit of such of the English statutes as existed on the Fourth day of July, seventeen hundred and seventy-six..."
That's considered trespass?
What about a flyer left on a screen door? Are are those local pizza places - as well as political canvassers around election time - trespassing? What about the UPS guy putting a Post-It on my front door? (Wouldn't be specifically trespass to chattels, I assume...)
I dunno...that sounds like it brings up free speech issues. Sounds like, if this is true, the only legal way to distribute written material to a community - say, to let them know about some local issue, not just a new take-out joint - would be an expensive mass USPS mailing.
Can you give some references on this? Court cases that have actually applied this interpretation? (I'm especially curious because I'm starting a new karate program locally, and trying to figure out how to advertize it.)
"Forever"? Damn,that's pretty ambitious about longevity... :-)
Seriously...even if you plan to keep it for the rest of your life, it's still going to have to be disposed of around the time when you have to be disposed of. (Fortunately, you and I are far more recyclable than our boxen.) I seriously doubt that your grandkids are going to have much use for that old '286 clone with the burnt-out power supply and the rusting case.
All depends on which part of which city.
No question, there is a lot of baseless paranoia among my fellow suburbanites. On the other hand, there are some neighborhoods in some cities where kids grow up seriously not expecting to survive into their twenties.
I never stated, much less insisted, any such thing. Please read before flaming.
True enough.
Or better mass transit.
I've had friends on welfare, and have witnessed their transportation woes in trying to deal with either the expense of vehicle ownership, or the very poor local mass transit system.
In urban areas, many poor people can't afford a car (plus insurance, plus parking fees, plus maintanence...) So tax-supported roads help them very little. They need good mass transit.
In rural areas, the situation is different. But the proposed scheme would have much lower costs-per-mile in rural areas.
Economically, this seesm like a good idea - it makes the paid price of driving closer to the true cost. But politically...the possibility of the state tracking my movements is not something I welcome with open arms. Not to mention the draconian enforcement measures that would be needed to prevent tampering.
Let me cut your mop
Let me shave your crop
Dain...tily
Dain...tily
Don't look so perplexed
Why must you be vexed
Can't you see you're next
Yes you're next
You're so next...
In any sane society, Chuck Jones would be canonized. He leaves behind a great legacy...I agree with JMS that two hundred years from now people will still be watching "Duck Dogers in the 24th and 1/2 Century!"
Thanks, Chuck. You will be remembered, most fondly.
Hmm. What field do you work in?
They are not exclusive. Read up on genetic algorithms. Read Rudy Rucker's Hardware for a science-fiction, but possible, approach.
While your assertation itself is questionable, we don't have to create them, as such; simply set up an environment in which they can evolve.
We don't have to know how to build something that's smart, we need only to be able to judge if it is smart. Introduce mutation, do selection, bam!
Lotus Notes is crap. Such a pointless piece of bloatware I have never seen before. Having to use it is the single biggest pain in working for IBM.
Come to think of it, all non-standard "groupware" should be takne out and burned, and replaced with standard e-mail, internal newsgroups, and a few simple web-based apps.
Mickey Hart and Jay Stevens. I saw Stevens speak at the Starwood festival last summer and he mentioned this phenomenon.
You're confusing eminent domain with civil forfeiture with evidence seizures.
Eminent domain - "We the state need to knock your house down to make a new road. You are entitled to compensation. We've decided that it's worth $100,000. If you don't like our assessment, there is a lengthy and difficult appeals process." (Not to be confused with the bullshit idea of "takings", where being prevented from raping the land is somehow supposed to be the same as having your deed revoked.)
Civil forfeiture - "We the state think your property has commited a crime. (Yes, not you, your property.) We're taking it. No trial. If you don't like it, you can try to sue us to get it back, and you can guess what the chances of success are." (Not to be confused with any sort of due process, justice, or civilized behavior.)
Evidence seizures - "We the state think you're doing something naughty with this stuff. We're taking it to investigate. Forget about getting it back in any reasonable period of time. If you don't like it...tough shit." (A necessary thing in theory, but highly abused in practice, especially with respect to computer-related crimes.)
This case - "We're not the government. We want your stuff or we'll sue and/or press charges, under a blatantly unconstitutional law we helped buy."
The institution of "copyright" protection is a taking. Ideas are not subject to ownership; creating a temporary monopoly on a thought in order to "promote the useful arts and sciences" is not some natural right of an author.
That's the theory; but it's not within the constitutional power of Congress to "promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." Nothing in their about heirs.
And heirs aren't the ones benefiting anyway from these massive extensions of copyright term - it's all about corporate ownership.
Yes, no, and no.
Spoils? Yes, if someone is making money off your work, you deserve a cut. Control its future? No; it is not only immoral, but impractical to attempt to control what others do with ideas that happen to arise first in your particular 1500cc of meat computer. Your heirs? No; immoral and unconstitutional.
At its clearest, perhaps, as it shows how capitalism is reliant upon the state to create, define, and defend artificial property rights.
The QPL was not the original licence. QPL didn't come along until 1999. The original Qt licence is very non-free - there are restrictions on even using it to create (not distribute) software, there are special restrictions if you're getting paid to develop software, and so on.
However, even with QPL the problem still exisited that a lot of KDE code was released under the GPL, and the authors hadn't explicitly allowed linking with non-GPLed code. That was RMS's concern from the QPL until until the GPL dual licencing.
Please try to get your facts straight. Five minutes with Google can keep you from looking like a fool.
You apparantly do not understand the difference between "GPL compatable" and "free".
Horseshit. RMS recognizes that non-GPLed software can still be free: